2011 (7) TMI 1392 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for interim bail - withdrawn application for regular bail - Whether the petitioner, on the basis of medical record produced by him, has been able to make out a case for his release on interim bail? - HUTT procedure - petitioner was sent to judicial custody on dismissal of his bail application by the Trial Court - During his stay in jail, the petitioner complained of medical problems - He was accordingly sent to G.B. Pant Hospital for medical examination and treatment - HELD THAT- The medical record placed on record by the petitioner starts from the year 1991. From the aforesaid record, it transpires that the petitioner underwent by-pass surgery around the year 2007. Thereafter, for a continuous period of 4 years, there is no medical record, which prima facie indicates that during the period from 2007 to 2011, the petitioner did not suffer any medical complication. On perusal of the report from the Board of Doctors of G.B. Pant Hospital, the medical condition of the petitioner appears to be stable and he has been advised to continue treatment and precautions as recommended to him at the time of discharge from G.B. Pant Hospital on 24th June, 2011. The report does not suggest that his medical condition cannot be managed in jail hospital. As per current medical status report of the petitioner submitted by the Board of Doctors constituted by the Medical Superintendent, G.B. Pant Hospital. It is recorded in that report that when Head-up- Tilt Test(HUTT) was being conducted, the petitioner became unconscious with unrecordable blood pressure and slowing of pulse to 47 beats/minutes, suggesting neurocardiogenic Syncope as the cause, predominantly vasodepressor type. Ld counsel has urged that such a situation can re-occur in jail and this may even prove fatal. I am not convinced with the aforesaid submissions. HUTT procedure is an invasive procedure. Therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the complication in the medical condition of the petitioner during HUTT test occurred only because of the invasive nature of the procedure. On careful consideration of the previous medical reports of the petitioner and the medical reports received from the Board of Doctors of G.B. Pant Hospital, it is apparent that since his detention in jail, the condition of the petitioner is stable and it is being properly managed by medication. Thus, I do not find it a fit case for grant of interim bail on medical grounds, particularly when the release of the petitioner for a period of 4-6 weeks would not change his medical history or situation. Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted interim bail on medical grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Bail Application on Medical Grounds:

The petitioner sought interim bail in case RC No. DAI-2009-A-0045 on medical grounds. Initially, he had filed a regular bail application (Bail Application No. 883/2011) and an interim bail application (Crl.Misc. Bail No. 1068/2011). The regular bail application was withdrawn on 27th June 2011, but the interim bail application was requested to be treated solely on medical grounds.

2. Medical History and Arguments by Petitioner:

The petitioner's counsel presented an extensive medical history from 1991 to 2007, including a discharge summary from Lilavati Hospital dated 16th May 2011, and articles on coronary artery ectasias. The petitioner suffers from coronary artery ectasias, Pituitary Adenoma, and Neurocardiogenic Syncope. The counsel argued that jail conditions could exacerbate these conditions due to stress and inadequate medical facilities, urging interim bail for 6-8 weeks to allow the petitioner to undergo necessary medical tests and treatments.

3. Opposition by Respondent:

The respondent's counsel opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner's medical records between 1991 and 2007 were outdated and that there was no significant medical history post-2007 until 2011, coinciding with the filing of the charge sheet. The medical reports from 2011 indicated that the petitioner did not require active management for his conditions and could continue treatment as an outpatient. The petitioner was examined by various medical boards, including G.B. Pant Hospital, which concluded that his condition was stable and manageable with ongoing treatment.

4. Court's Consideration:

The court considered the medical records and arguments from both sides, noting that the petitioner had a bypass surgery in 2007 and no significant medical complications were recorded until 2011. The court highlighted that the petitioner's medical condition, as per 2011 records, could be managed within the jail's medical facilities. The court also reviewed the latest medical report from G.B. Pant Hospital, which indicated that the petitioner's condition was stable and manageable with prescribed treatment.

5. Decision on Interim Bail:

The court concluded that interim bail is an interim arrangement and not a substitute for regular bail. Given the stable medical condition of the petitioner and the ability to manage his condition within the jail's medical facilities, the court found no compelling reason to grant interim bail. The court dismissed the application for interim bail.

6. Directives to Jail Authorities:

The court directed the Jail Superintendent and the Medical Officer Incharge of the Jail Hospital to ensure proper treatment and monitoring of the petitioner's medical condition. The petitioner was to be provided with medical facilities as advised by the treating doctors at G.B. Pant Hospital, and if necessary, he could be transferred as an inpatient for further treatment.

Conclusion:
The application for interim bail on medical grounds was dismissed, with directives issued to jail authorities to ensure the petitioner receives appropriate medical care as per the recommendations of the treating doctors.